drkblkforest

eHalcyon wrote:Technically, your last shirt could have been rejected just for not having the year in the title. That was an instruction for this derby and it's already happened to at least one other entry. So even though yours is decidedly on topic, the last submission was rightfully rejected - just for the wrong reason.

Hopefully you can catch up on votes though - it's a brilliant design.

I'm a dragon though. =P

Ahhhh *palm to face* Well, that makes sense. Thanks a lot for the comments/advice!
Hopefully I don't upset too many dragons with this shirt @_@

eHalcyon

Deliverance2005 wrote:yes...there were monkeys that got rejected last week, and yes the designer said he used clip art. But its interesting how you make it sound like they were rejected for being clip-art when in all actuality they were rejected because there is already a shirt being sold by Woot! that uses those images.

Even so, I think this one should be completely rejected for using clipart. The other designs used the clipart as a BASE. This one is just a copy+paste.

AdderXYU

Deliverance2005 wrote:yes...there were monkeys that got rejected last week, and yes the designer said he used clip art. But its interesting how you make it sound like they were rejected for being clip-art when in all actuality they were rejected because there is already a shirt being sold by Woot! that uses those images.

daedalusknight

shadesofgrey2 wrote:Launching of Voyager 1 and 2. Test launch/glide of the Space Shuttle Enterprise from the back of a 747. Hints of pop culture (Close Encounters) but done subtly enough that copyright should not be an issue. Crescent Moon where Death Star used to be.

Thanks for all who voted for the original. I hope that you will vote again.

D'oh! I didn't realize that looked enough like the Death Star to qualify as copyright infringement. I mean, it almost looked like a funky bowling ball.

fablefire

female wrote:I guess you're right. I think I'm just thinking that the context of the those objects together clearly are intended to represent Legend of Zelda. Saying they individually have no meaning may be true, but when you put them together there is no doubt in anyone's mind that you're trying to make and sell a Legend a Zelda shirt. We all know it, it's just then a legal argument along the lines of "that depends on what the definition of is is." The style of the hearts, the exact same shaped sword and crystals, a fairy in a bottle. I remember designs get rejected for less. Calvin and ball weren't copyrighted words, but put them together and you're capitalizing on Bill Watterson's work without any added content. The phrase itself wasn't even legally copyrighted, but it was/is his intellectual property. I can't think of any design that woot printed that was just capitalizing on the original work without making an additional comment on it. Maybe they're changing their stance.

Ja, it's pretty cool now that I think about it. The name "Zelda" isn't written anywhere on the detail or the comp - only in my first post. People still recognize the item combo though. I spent about 5 hours yesterday just thinking about how I could do a shirt inspired by The Legend of Zelda, and by the end, I chose the items that I thought best represented the game without tripping on copyrights (i.e. no Triforce). Just looking at the items though, it's also representative of the overall genre that the Zelda series inspired in the years that followed. How many games had the hero wielding a wooden sword? How many games had creatures bottled for consumption or other usage? Most of all, how many games used those pixelated hearts!

After careful consideration, I'm still going to say that there's no real copyright infringement. Calvin and ball weren't copyright to Watterson, but I've never seen Calvinball in anything outside his work. The items on my design may cause people to think of Zelda first, because it's one of the most popular and loved game series of all time, but the items (and even the combo) are not unique to the Zelda series alone.

superspryte

Deliverance2005 wrote:yes...there were monkeys that got rejected last week, and yes the designer said he used clip art. But its interesting how you make it sound like they were rejected for being clip-art when in all actuality they were rejected because there is already a shirt being sold by Woot! that uses those images.

This particular shirt is using clipart that is not allowed to be used for profit.

squidboots

Awesome design! You may not be aware that the "navy" background woot gives you on the artist template is not the same as the navy they print their shirts on - it's color PANTONE 532. Just FYI because this might affect you pallet choice (great colors with the background you have now but it might not work as well on the "real" color)

rglee129

squidboots wrote:Awesome design! You may not be aware that the "navy" background woot gives you on the artist template is not the same as the navy they print their shirts on - it's color PANTONE 532. Just FYI because this might affect you pallet choice (great colors with the background you have now but it might not work as well on the "real" color)

I always thought their navy was a little dark! Thanks for the tip- I'll post a version with #532 in a few minutes...

justrunfaster

Deliverance2005

my apologies, the shirt i thought is not for sale, but the one last week was rejected for being like another derby entry (not for sale), which would be here... http://shirt.woot.com/Derby/Entry.aspx?id=11238 which yes, i found that monkey on the same site i used

haxrox

THis shirt is teh AWESOME!! but your all sheep if u beleive its true. the hollywood studio story about the MOON is a HOAX!!! it was actualy really filmed on teh moon but the goverment WANTS you to beleive it was just filmed in a STUDIO. the government OWNS the media and if you dont beleive that just look at our GAS PRICES. SkekTek ur the man but be careful cause once the people who really run this counrty see ur shirt, theyll hack ur computer to burn down ur house.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.